9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (8) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal or Sri D. P. Agarwal who retired from the partnership firm in 1975. Certain bank accounts of the petitioner-firm were also attached. On June 9, 1977, such attachment was withdrawn on condition that the petitioner-firm should within two weeks from that date deposit with the Registrar, A.S., of this court a sum of Rs. 19,000 and further pay Rs. 7,500, payable to Smt. Panna Debi Agarwal being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of retirement of the said D. P. Agarwal a sum of Rs. 28,558.75 as his share of profit up to the date of retirement was found due and payable by the said D. P. Agarwal to the firm. After adjustment of such share of profits, the amount due from him as aforesaid came down to Rs. 19,276.88. Taking into consideration his share of liability for the firm's tax up to his retirement, his debt to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 29,949.77 then due to Smt. Panna Debi from the petitioner by way of rent against the dues of D. P. Agarwal. The TRO in his order dated May 9, 1977, came to the conclusion that the adjustments claimed to have been made was wrong and void since the income-tax demand would get preference over the claims as certificates under s. 222 were issued much before that. He was of opinion that a firm was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 182(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It appears that on June 28, 1977, the ITO, ' c ' Ward, District-III(I), Calcutta, has issued a notice under s. 182(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, directing the petitioner to show cause why the firm should not be required to pay a sum of Rs. 41,816.70 to the said ITO. In view of the fact that the proceedings had already been started by the ITO under s. 182(4) of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
